Talk:Green Earth Blue Skies
Official product description First up, this page is amazing. What a treat to have View-Master reels on the site! I hope this is the first of many. Scott posted this official product description on the page. I think having the pictures and captions is a better description than this, and I'm not crazy about excerpting this whole description on the page. What do other folks think? -- Danny (talk) 21:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC) ::I rather like the description. If we vote to keep it off the page, the other downside is that there's not enough text separating the top image from the gallery, so we get a whole lot of whitespace. Should we take the packaging picture away too? —Scott (talk) 21:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC) :::The description isn't the best, but as Scott said, it separates the gallery. The current version looks simply horrible on IE. Also, I kind of like bits like Grover remembering what his Mommy told him about the planet, and so on. Maybe a compromise, trim the description and include it as excerpts only? (For myself, I'd keep most or all of the first two paragraphs, and probably the last one, because the "Happy Earthday cake" line provides a more explicit link to Earth Day; the rest isn't that interesting to adult readers, since we all understand trees and water). -- Andrew Leal (talk) 22:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC) ::::That's a shame, it looks fine on my screen. Maybe that's a good reason to switch over to Monaco, which has a wider content area? :) ::::I like having the pictures higher, because that's the best thing on the page. A reader could click on the page and then click away without even realizing that we had the gallery. I've tried moving the packaging into the gallery -- what do you guys think? -- Danny (talk) 22:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC) ::::Also -- if we like using the description, maybe we could put that section under the gallery? I agree that there's fun bits in it -- personally, I like the Figgy Fizz mention. But I think having it at the top pushes the gallery down too much. -- Danny (talk) 22:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC) :::::For the record, Danny, as I've mentioned before, I've been using Monaco ever since they introduced it (except when I had to switch over to access "Links to related changes," which I can't find this way), and wider content area doesn't fix the spacing issues on any page. And I don't like mixing descriptive text with the gallery, which misleadingly implies the text was the caption on the reel itself and so on. Ah, never mind, you meant beneath the gallery, not within it. I can go with that. -- Andrew Leal (talk) 22:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC) ::::::I know -- I was just teasing Scott about Monaco. -- Danny (talk) 22:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC) :::::::It looked even worse in Monaco. The adspace moved the gallery completely out of the frame, which by reasoning of not seeing the gallery when the text was there, is just as bad. Moving the packaging to the gallery is better, but I don't have a problem with the description where it was. Anyone who brought home the reel from the store read the description before they went through the slides and we generally save galleries for after the text anyway. —Scott (talk) 22:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)